OpenSAML user discussion

["Scott Cantor" <>]

> Yeah, it's a bug.  I think I'm just going to rip out that code on the
> marshallers and unmarshallers that makes the check.  It's turning out to
> be a pain and I know the C++ code doesn't have it.

Actually, it sort of does, but the target of the check is dynamically set
based on the builder giving the implementation object a QName (or defaulting
one), so it's a tautology.

So if you manually used a builder and then unmarshalled, you could get the
same error. It's just not likely, it's only a sanity check.

-- Scott